ASUS Radeon RX 6600 XT STRIX OC

[wolf]

Even @ MSRP this card isn't good value, let alone current market pricing, yikes. Really looks like AMD barely wants to sell any, at least in any volume which would make sense. Buttering us up for mental RDNA3 pricing?

the 6600XT isn't 15% faster as promised (I am shocked that AMD would cherry-pick titles for its marketing slides)

Tell me that's sarcasm...

 

[Ravenas]

Ouch, worse than a 3060Ti for the same money. No wonder AMD is trying to keep the reviews from coming out. Man, can you just image the backlash if nVidia was telling reviewers they can only release nVidia sanctioned reviews? The torches and pitchforks would be sold out just like graphics cards.

Not arguing the performance comment, but find me a MSRP 3060 ti.

 

[wolf]

Not arguing the performance comment, but find me a MSRP 3060 ti.

At least there is a 'reference' model that does exist and it is possible to buy it at MSRP for some people/locations. Yeah it's a stretch but there is at least that possibility.

 

[Minus Infinity]

128 bit bus is a joke. The infinity cache cannot cover the starvation it suffers above 1080p. This is AMD's achilles heel. The 6600XT could have easily been on par with 3060Ti at 1440p even with a 160 bit bus, but should have been 192 bit.

The whole line-up is bjorked and they shot themselves in the foot. 6800XT/6900XT would have easily had the performance crown with 320 bit bus, 6700 series should have been 256 bit, 6600 series 192 bit and if they release a 6500 series that should be 128 bit.

Prices are a joke even at MSRP.

I'm AMD all the way on cpu but on GPU I'll stick with Nvidia. AMD also announced it's sticking with this bus width gimping for RDNA3 and 256 bit for monster Navi 31. Lovelace is looking better all the time.

 

[arbiter]

So yea 128bit isnt gonna cut it above 1080p. I know AMD wants to save $ by doing this 8x pci thing but what really is cheaper 8x pci4 or just using a 16x pci 3.0 chip? Seems like be better to use 3.0 since everyone has it and it would work on older boards without the penalty that rears its head in some games like Doom which is in the area of 20%. As for infinite cache yea Kinda seems like now days its usefulness isn't really useful maybe 10+ years ago it would been better with smaller bus and such but now with cards that can get 500+ GB/s pretty easy seems like a to little to late thing.

 

[N3M3515]

No no no I keep seeing this, tell us all where we can buy 3060 Ti's for $400? I would buy one right now. The fact is that price is total fantasy (but I think you know that already).

You think i don't know?, i'm comparing MSRP vs MSRP, apples to apples, if you want to go by street prices then wait a couple of weeks and let's compare street price vs street price, 3060Ti will win hands down.

 

[Ravenas]

At least there is a 'reference' model that does exist and it is possible to buy it at MSRP for some people/locations. Yeah it's a stretch but there is at least that possibility.

Just stating if you want to use a graphics card or if you want to cross your fingers waiting for a MSRP graphics card. 6600 XT will likely be available at MSRP, maybe not on launch day but tremendously less scalping will occur.

 

[mechtech]

“, wasn't there a time when you could buy a decent graphics card to play games for $200?”

ya the RX 580 8GB and 5500XT 8GB

I wish these cards were on the charts for comparison.

guess we’ll just keep waiting…………

 

[Minus Infinity]

So yea 128bit isnt gonna cut it above 1080p. I know AMD wants to save $ by doing this 8x pci thing but what really is cheaper 8x pci4 or just using a 16x pci 3.0 chip? Seems like be better to use 3.0 since everyone has it and it would work on older boards without the penalty that rears its head in some games like Doom which is in the area of 20%. As for infinite cache yea Kinda seems like now days its usefulness isn't really useful maybe 10+ years ago it would been better with smaller bus and such but now with cards that can get 500+ GB/s pretty easy seems like a to little to late thing.

They might save dollars but it's not passed onto the consumer. I wouldn't pay more than $299 for this card.

 

[newtekie1]

Not arguing the performance comment, but find me a MSRP 3060 ti.

Find me an MSRP 6600XT. No one said anything about MSRP, we are talking about actual street prices, this review is talking actual street prices. We are basing our opinion on the $700 street price of the 3060Ti, as listed in the table on the very first page of this review. And at those prices, this card is a turd.

 

[Valantar]

Find me an MSRP 6600XT. No one said anything about MSRP, we are talking about actual street prices, this review is talking actual street prices. We are basing our opinion on the $700 street price of the 3060Ti, as listed in the table on the very first page of this review. And at those prices, this card is a turd.

At those prices every card is a turd.

So yea 128bit isnt gonna cut it above 1080p. I know AMD wants to save $ by doing this 8x pci thing but what really is cheaper 8x pci4 or just using a 16x pci 3.0 chip? Seems like be better to use 3.0 since everyone has it and it would work on older boards without the penalty that rears its head in some games like Doom which is in the area of 20%. As for infinite cache yea Kinda seems like now days its usefulness isn't really useful maybe 10+ years ago it would been better with smaller bus and such but now with cards that can get 500+ GB/s pretty easy seems like a to little to late thing.

128 bit bus is a joke. The infinity cache cannot cover the starvation it suffers above 1080p. This is AMD's achilles heel. The 6600XT could have easily been on par with 3060Ti at 1440p even with a 160 bit bus, but should have been 192 bit.

The whole line-up is bjorked and they shot themselves in the foot. 6800XT/6900XT would have easily had the performance crown with 320 bit bus, 6700 series should have been 256 bit, 6600 series 192 bit and if they release a 6500 series that should be 128 bit.

Prices are a joke even at MSRP.

I'm AMD all the way on cpu but on GPU I'll stick with Nvidia. AMD also announced it's sticking with this bus width gimping for RDNA3 and 256 bit for monster Navi 31. Lovelace is looking better all the time.

Comments like these fascinate me. I mean, the numbers are pretty clear: outside of a few outliers (where it still performs well, mind you), Infinity Cache clearly makes up for the bandwidth deficit at resolutions where the rest of this gpu can keep up. It consistently outperforms an Nvidia offering with a 50% wider bus by a significant margin. The margin is bigger at 1080p than 1440p, but it's clearly ahead in both. So what's the problem? An on-paper spec "deficit" with no real-world performance loss is not a deficit. Talk about looking for a problem where one doesn't exist.

 

[Charcharo]

It's just a cache, even if AMD left the full 96MB in there, it would still overflow in the right scenario.

To be fair to IC, as long as it keeps the ROPs fed and geometry in cache, it is already pulling its weight fully. 96 mb on the 6700 XT ensure it has more raw bandwidth than a 5700 XT even at 5K. The 6900 XT is basically not bandwidth limited either, it loses to 3090 (on average) due to being compute bound, not bandwidth bound.

The 6600 XT obviously has a lot less IC, but the fact that it does good at 1440p surprises me. 32mb goes a VERY long way it seems.

 

[arbiter]

They might save dollars but it's not passed onto the consumer. I wouldn't pay more than $299 for this card.

You miss understood a little what getting and somewhat asking. Wondered if price of 3.0 x16 would be compared to the 4.0 8x option. If they are same or near it then would seem 3.0 be a better option since you have all these boards that support doing it at 16x instead of cripleing the cards to 8x 3.0.

At those prices every card is a turd.


Comments like these fascinate me. I mean, the numbers are pretty clear: outside of a few outliers (where it still performs well, mind you), Infinity Cache clearly makes up for the bandwidth deficit at resolutions where the rest of this gpu can keep up. It consistently outperforms an Nvidia offering with a 50% wider bus by a significant margin. The margin is bigger at 1080p than 1440p, but it's clearly ahead in both. So what's the problem? An on-paper spec "deficit" with no real-world performance loss is not a deficit. Talk about looking for a problem where one doesn't exist.

Cause 1080p that 128bit bus might be fine but if you look at 1080 to 1440p the gap performance boost the 256bit has shows and even when you look 1440 to 4k you can see gap widen. Look at relative performance, where they use 6600xt has base line 100%. At 1080p the 3060ti is 12% faster, then at 1440p it increases to almost 20% gap, then 4k it grows to 36%.

 

[Hargema]

This settles it, the 3060 is a better pick,
the wait was for nothing.

 

[Chomiq]

This settles it, the 3060 is a better pick,
the wait was for nothing.

Neither of those are better pick at anything.

 

[Xuper]

5700 XT with higher numbers ( This Spec ) is still slower than 6600 XT with low number. Fascinating? some comments about 128 bit are stupid. on the paper AMD Card with hype number was slower than nvidia , example ? Radeon R9 290X vs Geforce GTX 970.

 

[W1zzard]

ya the RX 580 8GB and 5500XT 8GB

I wish these cards were on the charts for comparison.

I have the data, but they are so much slower it really doesn't make sense to include them. I cut off the comparison list at 75% and 125%, or the charts will get insanely long

 

[Shatun_Bear]

You think i don't know?, i'm comparing MSRP vs MSRP, apples to apples, if you want to go by street prices then wait a couple of weeks and let's compare street price vs street price, 3060Ti will win hands down.

What's going to happen in a couple weeks? I havent seen a 3060 Ti in stock since release all that time ago unless its for ridiculous prices then its gone again. Street price of both will remaim insane for a while.

Not arguing the performance comment, but find me a MSRP 3060 ti.

Yeh he doesnt make any sense. You cant get any card for MSRP. What you get is a hugely inflated price, how insanely inflated is dependent on where you live. US slightly less worse than elsewhere.

 

[Valantar]

Cause 1080p that 128bit bus might be fine but if you look at 1080 to 1440p the gap performance boost the 256bit has shows and even when you look 1440 to 4k you can see gap widen. Look at relative performance, where they use 6600xt has base line 100%. At 1080p the 3060ti is 12% faster, then at 1440p it increases to almost 20% gap, then 4k it grows to 36%.

But... those comparisons are meaningless. Utterly meaningless. The absolute performance isn't there for 2160p gaming with this card, so whether it lags there doesn't matter whatsoever. Not at all. Zero. And it's still faster than the 3060 at 1440p. This obviously means this GPU is worse value at 1440p than at 1080p - which is likely why AMD is marketing it as a high-end 1080p GPU. That's reasonable. Does it matter that the 3060 Ti is 36% faster at 2160p? Not whatsoever. Does it matter that it's faster at 1440p? A bit, sure, as it would be a better value proposition there if both were available at MSRP. Does it matter at 1080p? Nope.

You're working really hard to make an issue where none exists.

I have the data, but they are so much slower it really doesn't make sense to include them. I cut off the comparison list at 75% and 125%, or the charts will get insanely long

Have you considered developing a benchmark data comparison engine like Anandtech's Bench? Of course this would no doubt be a major development (and data entry!) effort, but it would be an immensely useful tool for your readers.

 

[W1zzard]

Have you considered developing a benchmark data comparison engine like Anandtech's Bench? Of course this would no doubt be a major development (and data entry!) effort, but it would be an immensely useful tool for your readers.

We have something similar (and much more complex) internally, to build the charts, but not ready to expose it to public, and not much time atm. Maybe a project for 2022

 

[nguyen]

But... those comparisons are meaningless. Utterly meaningless. The absolute performance isn't there for 2160p gaming with this card, so whether it lags there doesn't matter whatsoever. Not at all. Zero. And it's still faster than the 3060 at 1440p. This obviously means this GPU is worse value at 1440p than at 1080p - which is likely why AMD is marketing it as a high-end 1080p GPU. That's reasonable. Does it matter that the 3060 Ti is 36% faster at 2160p? Not whatsoever. Does it matter that it's faster at 1440p? A bit, sure, as it would be a better value proposition there if both were available at MSRP. Does it matter at 1080p? Nope.

You're working really hard to make an issue where none exists.

6600XT is just a pointless GPU, no need to defend so hard. So many compromises for a 380usd GPU that it's funny.

1440p 60FPS gaming? Nope, not possible with new AAA games

1080p 60FPS gaming with RT? Nope
1080p high refresh gaming? Yeah sure like people can tell the difference between 120FPS and 140FPS without looking at the FPS counter, even the 5600XT is getting 100FPS average.

 

[Jism]

• PCI-Express interface limited to x8

I mean, even on PCI-E 3.0 the thing is still 99% vs PCI-E 4.

Shoudnt cause any issues with this 1080p card.

 

[Valantar]

6600XT is just a pointless GPU, no need to defend so hard. So many compromises for a 380usd GPU that it's funny.

1440p 60FPS gaming? Nope, not possible with new AAA games
View attachment 212090

1080p 60FPS gaming with RT? Nope
1080p high refresh gaming? Yeah sure like people can tell the difference between 120FPS and 140FPS without looking at the FPS counter, even the 5600XT is getting 100FPS average.

Well, sure, but at this point you're drawing mostly arbitrary lines just to do so. The 3060 and 3060 Ti are equally pointless by all of those metrics after all. IMO the fault lies in taking pricing into consideration at all. GPU pricing is insane, ergo all GPUs are pointless and terrible value currently. Singling out one for that is arbitrary and weird. One has two choices: either accepting that GPU pricing is insane, or not accepting it. Either way the outcome is the same: the only way to afford a GPU is to be lucky and have a lot of money. There is no winning in this situation.

As for that 1440p60 chart - sure, it fails to reach 60fps in a few games. But going from Ultra to High in those games would likely far exceed 60 with little to no perceptible drop in quality. The same would of course apply to equally powerful (or weak) competitors - but that's exactly as it should be. Everything at this performance level is a good 1440p60 GPU, though with some extremely minor compormises. Which is perfectly fine for this tier of card - the main issue there is that this should be a $300 MSRP card, not a $380 one. But again, that's not something that can be meaningfully taken into consideration currently.

As for 1080p60 RT, it's behind the 3060, sure, but not meaningfully so. Neither are very playable in Control or Watch Dogs, and both are in Metro. The 3060 Ti is notably faster, but even that only manages 60fps in two out of three tested games (though the 55fps of the third title is also perfectly playable). But overall ... meh. Still fine, still mostly competitive, if a bit behind.

I'm not defeding the 6600 XT so much as I'm trying to bring some desperately needed nuance to this discussion. There are far too many black-and-white takes here.

 

[nguyen]

I mean, even on PCI-E 3.0 the thing is still 99% vs PCI-E 4.

Shoudnt cause any issues with this 1080p card.

Wait until there are games with MS DirectStorage, 8x PCIe lanes is gonna flunk hard. Games that rely on texture streaming heavily like Doom Eternal shows what is gonna happen with PCIe 8x.

 

[W1zzard]

MS DirectStorage

The thought did cross my mind, but I wouldn't want to make comments without any data.

DirectStorage will be optimized for PCIe 3.0 SSDs, so x4 3.0 at maximum, also taking into account lower end SSDs that don't even reach that speed. Data gets unpacked on the GPU, so only compressed data travels across the PCIe bus of the GPU. x4 3.0 == 4 GB/s, there's no way you even have enough assets to need that for more than a few seconds. If you're constantly swapping assets in and out at that rate then your engine is fundamentally flawed and it will stutter like no tomorrow on any hardware.

I'm not convinced that it will be a huge issue